I need to do some work anyway, so I'll be mostly vacationing too but I will listen to him and sometimes posting my disagreements.
Right now, in his first hour, he's got a guest who is an expert on memory. He keeps talking over her and that drives me nuts.
Yes, I understand the need to hurry along a guest who isn't talking fast enough, or isn't getting to the point fast enough. Too often, though, Prager just has some idea that HE wants to get out, and will jump in on top of the guest, KEEP them from making the point, and redirect to himself. "I was saying this ten years ago!" is a favorite. I don't care, Prager, I want to hear what the guest is trying to say now.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Differences in cultures
Prager, don't leave out the Caribbean blacks. There are enough of them here, and whose children have been here, to make some studies of the differences between them, with their more European upbringing, and our descendants of blacks based originally in the South, stand out in sharp contrast to the whining "advocacy" spokesmen who would have everyone believe that having dark skin means you cannot succeed in America. That is to say, Caribbean blacks do just fine; it's the redneck values our fifth-generation blacks acquired from their Southern slave owners, which they even seem to have carried with them when they migrated to industrial areas, that make them fail.
I'm pretty sure you've read Sowell's book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals", but maybe you've forgotten what he said in it. It's a good expose of how long a bad culture, which we think of as white, affects people--even more than their lousy economic condition.
I'm pretty sure you've read Sowell's book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals", but maybe you've forgotten what he said in it. It's a good expose of how long a bad culture, which we think of as white, affects people--even more than their lousy economic condition.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Reading a Bible verse for Ultimate Issues
Greg Koukl has a response to your plan:
"If there was one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could impart, one useful tip I could leave that would serve you well the rest of your life, what would it be? What is the single most important practical skill I've ever learned as a Christian?
"Here it is: Never read a Bible verse. That's right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph at least."
Reading ONE verse is how our Biblically illiterate populace has come to the conclusion that Jesus is a pacifist, is anti-wealth, is a socialist, is anti-smoking, is a democrat, is whatever they want to believe. Everyone could come up with their favorite forty verses of the Bible, if you gave them enough time. But they do not understand it, plain and simple, and they do not understand even the verses they are quoting because they know nothing about what ELSE is in the Bible.
If you're going to read ONE verse for your studies, please do us a favor and give us the rest of the context. "Honor your father and mother" standing alone could mean all sorts of hooey.
"If there was one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could impart, one useful tip I could leave that would serve you well the rest of your life, what would it be? What is the single most important practical skill I've ever learned as a Christian?
"Here it is: Never read a Bible verse. That's right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph at least."
Reading ONE verse is how our Biblically illiterate populace has come to the conclusion that Jesus is a pacifist, is anti-wealth, is a socialist, is anti-smoking, is a democrat, is whatever they want to believe. Everyone could come up with their favorite forty verses of the Bible, if you gave them enough time. But they do not understand it, plain and simple, and they do not understand even the verses they are quoting because they know nothing about what ELSE is in the Bible.
If you're going to read ONE verse for your studies, please do us a favor and give us the rest of the context. "Honor your father and mother" standing alone could mean all sorts of hooey.
The Book Store issue
Prager: "Do you know how many girls I picked up in bookstores when I was a kid?"
Dozens, probaby, and they were far more interesting and of higher quality than the sad, dumb girls you meet on Facebook, or MySpace.
When I moved to Westwood in 1973 and started going to college at UCLA in 1974, the Village was full of book stores. There was the ineviable B. Dalton Pickwick, which was the book megastore of its day. Then there were Hennesy and Ingalls, an art and architecture store; there was another megastore soon after that, it might have been Borders, plus another store that had the world's most beautiful coffee table books (and had a sister store) in Palos Verdes). Across the street was a store that carried plenty of teach yourself books and books on (but not in) foreign languages. If you got in the car and drove down Westwood Boulevard you'd pass the astrology and new age stores, the feminist store, the s-f and fantasy store. All the way down at Pico Boulevard were the French books and Spanish books store, I believe owned by a husband-wife pair, and a wonderful children's books and music store (which was originally in West L.A. on SMBlvd but moved into southern Westwood). Two miles to the east was Beverly Hills and several bookstores there. In Century City were a couple of book stores and a number of stores that had pretty decent specialty book sections.
Much of the business of these stores was stolen by Santa Monica's books district on Second Street. Many many used-books shops and specialty shops now line that street. If I were pretty enough to get picked up by some man while I was reading a book--and because of the book I was reading--that's where I would go.
But further, on the issue of whether this is a good place to meet people? I don't think so. Back in the old days, when I used to be reasonably pretty, I was always in book stores (though I can't say I was looking for a guy, except ONE time), always reading, always buying books. I bought books on foreign languages, books on history, books by Jane Austen (never any by any Bronte), biographies, lots of non-fiction. I'm a tomboy, so maybe the fact that I wasn't standing in the sexy novels section but was often in the car repair manuals section labeled me as a wife shopping for her husband, but at other times, wasn't it classy enough for me to be reading books on Agincourt or on 1066?
There is so much embarrassment about meeting strangers or going to a pick-up spot, like the espresso bar at Barnes and Noble, that I have found grocery stores good places to CHAT with people and horrible places to exchange phone numbers. How the hell do you stand talking with someone long enough to know if you want to see them again? I would hope you'd like almost everyone you meet this way well enough to say to yourself, "seemed like a pleasant enough person" but I'd be appalled if you actually exchanged phone numbers this way.
Sounds like a business opportunity for someone. Of course you dislike bars, Dennis, and not just because they're loud and obnoxious, but because the people who go to them are not the kind you'd want to meet. One of these days I'll have a few bucks, fix up my car, and go to the listener group that I joined two years ago. Then I'll have someone to talk with.
Dozens, probaby, and they were far more interesting and of higher quality than the sad, dumb girls you meet on Facebook, or MySpace.
When I moved to Westwood in 1973 and started going to college at UCLA in 1974, the Village was full of book stores. There was the ineviable B. Dalton Pickwick, which was the book megastore of its day. Then there were Hennesy and Ingalls, an art and architecture store; there was another megastore soon after that, it might have been Borders, plus another store that had the world's most beautiful coffee table books (and had a sister store) in Palos Verdes). Across the street was a store that carried plenty of teach yourself books and books on (but not in) foreign languages. If you got in the car and drove down Westwood Boulevard you'd pass the astrology and new age stores, the feminist store, the s-f and fantasy store. All the way down at Pico Boulevard were the French books and Spanish books store, I believe owned by a husband-wife pair, and a wonderful children's books and music store (which was originally in West L.A. on SMBlvd but moved into southern Westwood). Two miles to the east was Beverly Hills and several bookstores there. In Century City were a couple of book stores and a number of stores that had pretty decent specialty book sections.
Much of the business of these stores was stolen by Santa Monica's books district on Second Street. Many many used-books shops and specialty shops now line that street. If I were pretty enough to get picked up by some man while I was reading a book--and because of the book I was reading--that's where I would go.
But further, on the issue of whether this is a good place to meet people? I don't think so. Back in the old days, when I used to be reasonably pretty, I was always in book stores (though I can't say I was looking for a guy, except ONE time), always reading, always buying books. I bought books on foreign languages, books on history, books by Jane Austen (never any by any Bronte), biographies, lots of non-fiction. I'm a tomboy, so maybe the fact that I wasn't standing in the sexy novels section but was often in the car repair manuals section labeled me as a wife shopping for her husband, but at other times, wasn't it classy enough for me to be reading books on Agincourt or on 1066?
There is so much embarrassment about meeting strangers or going to a pick-up spot, like the espresso bar at Barnes and Noble, that I have found grocery stores good places to CHAT with people and horrible places to exchange phone numbers. How the hell do you stand talking with someone long enough to know if you want to see them again? I would hope you'd like almost everyone you meet this way well enough to say to yourself, "seemed like a pleasant enough person" but I'd be appalled if you actually exchanged phone numbers this way.
Sounds like a business opportunity for someone. Of course you dislike bars, Dennis, and not just because they're loud and obnoxious, but because the people who go to them are not the kind you'd want to meet. One of these days I'll have a few bucks, fix up my car, and go to the listener group that I joined two years ago. Then I'll have someone to talk with.
The left-leaning university
The guest is no doubt right. He agrees that professors on the left, regardless of how they describe or label themselves, far outweigh those on the right. He denies that this bias finds its way meaningfully into the classroom, either in the form of indoctrination or in terms of punishing or censoring students who do not toe the party line in terms of repeating the professor's bias in their papers or in essay answers on exams.
I went to UCLA in the Seventies. That was only a few years after the asinine burning of the Bank of America in Santa Barbara. The Equal Rights for Blacks movement was in full swing, Roe vs Wade had occurred in 1973, one year before I entered the school, students were still plucking grapes out of their fruit salads, Ford was still Nixon's "hand-picked, unelected successor", the heart-breaking evacuation of Saigon was yet to happen, and feminism, though it had been around for more than a decade, was flexing its ugly, hormone-drenched muscles and growing stronger every day.
I took science classes as a pre-med student. Under UCLA's pathetic attempt to prop up their academic reputation by making these classes "weed-out classes" ("we get rid of the less-capable students so med schools don't have to"), they swamped us with numbers. Thus, we learned to use our calculators without learning anything about biology, chemistry, or physics. As well, our teachers barely spoke in sentences, thus there was little room for politics in the classroom. I opted to take biology at the Cal State U, where we got a double dose of Green Movement. I think this counts.
We had a chemistry professor who was utterly incoherent and incapable of teaching us chemistry. And by that I mean she was even worse than the other chem professors. She'd get five minutes into her lesson and would have lost almost everyone, even those of us who were listening and trying to learn. We dreaded her classes. The chem department decided, based on her student reviews, that she shouldn't be re-hired. The feminists put up a howl: the only reason, they said, that she wasn't going to get tenure was sexism. They waged a mud-flinging, tarring campaign in which thousands of accusations of primitivism, persecution, discrimination, bias, discrimination, ignorance, and discrimination were thrown at the staff, the students who underrated her, the administration, you name it, their tongues were unleashed and their venom poured forth unabated. I believe the administration, after some bullying from our alcoholic chancellor, gave in and kept her on. What the students got out of this was a thorough indocrtination in all the more idiotic cliches of the feminist movement, and a demonstration of the success of using those cliches. They were told the feminists were right, and events proved them out.
In my history classes I got told that America was crap. In my political science classes, believe it or not, I was left alone. Math and music history and art history were left alone, but my language classes featured professors thoroughly steeped in the attitudes of Eurpoe: America is a bunch of ignorant heathen (except for the natives Americans, of course) who were too stupid to read or know what was God's good truth.
Late in my career I tried to switch to Quantitative Psychology. I took a dozen core psych courses. These had been handed over to the feminist studies students. Yes, every day the professor came into the lecture hall, announced that he wouldn't be teaching because the femiinist studies girls were taking over the class, and for the rest of our time, they indoctrinated us in feminist propaganda. They quoted studies, they showed examples, they brought in slogans that reinforced the "men and women are only different because of social conditioning" line. When I left college I could have quoted so many examples of little boys with cauterized penises who were raised as girls and through parental conditioning the boys thought they were girls, felt like girls, giggled like girls, named their cars like girls, played with dolls like girls. We were positive that there was no difference between boys and girls.
That has got to count.
Outside my pre-med classes, there were the history classes where we learned that
I went to UCLA in the Seventies. That was only a few years after the asinine burning of the Bank of America in Santa Barbara. The Equal Rights for Blacks movement was in full swing, Roe vs Wade had occurred in 1973, one year before I entered the school, students were still plucking grapes out of their fruit salads, Ford was still Nixon's "hand-picked, unelected successor", the heart-breaking evacuation of Saigon was yet to happen, and feminism, though it had been around for more than a decade, was flexing its ugly, hormone-drenched muscles and growing stronger every day.
I took science classes as a pre-med student. Under UCLA's pathetic attempt to prop up their academic reputation by making these classes "weed-out classes" ("we get rid of the less-capable students so med schools don't have to"), they swamped us with numbers. Thus, we learned to use our calculators without learning anything about biology, chemistry, or physics. As well, our teachers barely spoke in sentences, thus there was little room for politics in the classroom. I opted to take biology at the Cal State U, where we got a double dose of Green Movement. I think this counts.
We had a chemistry professor who was utterly incoherent and incapable of teaching us chemistry. And by that I mean she was even worse than the other chem professors. She'd get five minutes into her lesson and would have lost almost everyone, even those of us who were listening and trying to learn. We dreaded her classes. The chem department decided, based on her student reviews, that she shouldn't be re-hired. The feminists put up a howl: the only reason, they said, that she wasn't going to get tenure was sexism. They waged a mud-flinging, tarring campaign in which thousands of accusations of primitivism, persecution, discrimination, bias, discrimination, ignorance, and discrimination were thrown at the staff, the students who underrated her, the administration, you name it, their tongues were unleashed and their venom poured forth unabated. I believe the administration, after some bullying from our alcoholic chancellor, gave in and kept her on. What the students got out of this was a thorough indocrtination in all the more idiotic cliches of the feminist movement, and a demonstration of the success of using those cliches. They were told the feminists were right, and events proved them out.
In my history classes I got told that America was crap. In my political science classes, believe it or not, I was left alone. Math and music history and art history were left alone, but my language classes featured professors thoroughly steeped in the attitudes of Eurpoe: America is a bunch of ignorant heathen (except for the natives Americans, of course) who were too stupid to read or know what was God's good truth.
Late in my career I tried to switch to Quantitative Psychology. I took a dozen core psych courses. These had been handed over to the feminist studies students. Yes, every day the professor came into the lecture hall, announced that he wouldn't be teaching because the femiinist studies girls were taking over the class, and for the rest of our time, they indoctrinated us in feminist propaganda. They quoted studies, they showed examples, they brought in slogans that reinforced the "men and women are only different because of social conditioning" line. When I left college I could have quoted so many examples of little boys with cauterized penises who were raised as girls and through parental conditioning the boys thought they were girls, felt like girls, giggled like girls, named their cars like girls, played with dolls like girls. We were positive that there was no difference between boys and girls.
That has got to count.
Outside my pre-med classes, there were the history classes where we learned that
Monday, January 24, 2011
"I subscribe to liberal publications"
You should read them, sure. But don't support them; if you give the NYTimes fifteen dollars a month, that's fifteen dollars each month that could be going to a conservative publication.
Greg Koukl could use it. Jay Sekulow isn't getting donations in the huge amounts that the ACLU gets. Try sending your money there. Or to a charity. Forget the Times. If they died, another leftist publication would spring up in its place without a single penny of your money. And there are plenty of leftist contributors to keep it going.
Do leftists send their money to Family News in Focus, just to hear what FNIF has to say? Why be so generous? Send your money there, and to hell with the leftist, Destroy-America Times.
READ THEM, BUT DON'T SUPPORT THEM.
Greg Koukl could use it. Jay Sekulow isn't getting donations in the huge amounts that the ACLU gets. Try sending your money there. Or to a charity. Forget the Times. If they died, another leftist publication would spring up in its place without a single penny of your money. And there are plenty of leftist contributors to keep it going.
Do leftists send their money to Family News in Focus, just to hear what FNIF has to say? Why be so generous? Send your money there, and to hell with the leftist, Destroy-America Times.
READ THEM, BUT DON'T SUPPORT THEM.
There are no left-wing hypocrites, only right-wing hypocrites
You have to love it. "I want you and me and everyone who makes more than a hundred thousand a year to pay higher taxes!"
So screams people like Bill Clinton and Alec Baldwin.
And then they lie to the IRS (used underwear, ten dollars' deduction per pair!) so THEY won't have to pay. Clinton himself spent years parading around, the lead poseur in the country, screaming, "Give me a chance to pay my share to the IRS!"
WTF was that all about? Who was stopping that moron from sending more money to the IRS? Just the moron himself. And maybe his bitch of a wife.
Alec Baldwin? The rich have to pay their fair share? How about you stop lying about your assets, Alec?
Of course, I'm assuming the IRS release was correct. If they exonerate him, I'll apologize.
So screams people like Bill Clinton and Alec Baldwin.
And then they lie to the IRS (used underwear, ten dollars' deduction per pair!) so THEY won't have to pay. Clinton himself spent years parading around, the lead poseur in the country, screaming, "Give me a chance to pay my share to the IRS!"
WTF was that all about? Who was stopping that moron from sending more money to the IRS? Just the moron himself. And maybe his bitch of a wife.
Alec Baldwin? The rich have to pay their fair share? How about you stop lying about your assets, Alec?
Of course, I'm assuming the IRS release was correct. If they exonerate him, I'll apologize.
Limousine liberals
Prager likes Clancy's invented term "limousine liberals". I'm pretty sure he didn't invent it, because I heard that a long time ago. But then, perhaps Clancy had never heard it when he put it into one of his books, or wherever he did put it.
I would humbly like to suggest a new term as well. "Savior politician."
A label that says it all.
I would humbly like to suggest a new term as well. "Savior politician."
A label that says it all.
The political flavor of genocide
Overwhelmingly has been leftist.
Well, you're going to hear the exceptions, and mostly the exceptions weren't genocides, and anyway they were based on politics.
Argentina--that wasn't genocide. Guatemala--same thing. Chile--not genocide.
Kosovo. That was Christians shooting Muslims and trying to keep them from invading their country. Of course you never heard that on the news, you only heard that the people in power were trying to slaughter the people out of power. But power wasn't the cause of the genocide, it was stopping an invasion.
It's funny how in areas where Muslims kill Christians, such as in Eritrea, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Ethiopia, this country's savior-politicians have no urge to go and rescue the slaughtered millions and prevent genocide. They're shameful.
I never want to hear the label "chicken hawks" or any other thing like "warmongers" applied to conservatives ever again. I may blow it and tear into the effing hypocrites.
Well, you're going to hear the exceptions, and mostly the exceptions weren't genocides, and anyway they were based on politics.
Argentina--that wasn't genocide. Guatemala--same thing. Chile--not genocide.
Kosovo. That was Christians shooting Muslims and trying to keep them from invading their country. Of course you never heard that on the news, you only heard that the people in power were trying to slaughter the people out of power. But power wasn't the cause of the genocide, it was stopping an invasion.
It's funny how in areas where Muslims kill Christians, such as in Eritrea, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Ethiopia, this country's savior-politicians have no urge to go and rescue the slaughtered millions and prevent genocide. They're shameful.
I never want to hear the label "chicken hawks" or any other thing like "warmongers" applied to conservatives ever again. I may blow it and tear into the effing hypocrites.
List of the top ten composers of all time
So this idiot--tell us his name again Prager, dammit--has to diversify his list. What the hell is the matter with people, anyway?
His name, by the way, is Anthony Tommasini and he is the classical music critic of the New York Times.
Here is what he says:
For any attempt to determine the top 10 classical composers in history, like the one we embarked on in the Arts & Leisure section on Sunday, the Viennese Classical period presents a special challenge. If such a list is to be at all diverse and comprehensive, how could 4 of the 10 slots go to composers — Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert — who worked in Vienna during, say, the 75 years from 1750 to 1825? What on earth was going on there to foster such achievement?
Is this guy a boob or is this guy a boob? As Prager points out, it is not a top ten list. The list has been altered to include composers who were not Viennese, not flourishing between 1750 and 1825. How come it doesn't include women? How come everyone is white? Why no Hawaiian composers, or Greeks, or Nigerians, for that matter? There are no carpenters or politicians on that list. Maybe we should have a representative from the jockey community, too.
To put it simply, if someone was a top ten composer, he belongs on that list, regardless of Tommasini's desire to have a diverse list. Handel and Haydn both deserve spots.
Here is the list in descending order:
1 Bach
2 Beethoven
3 Mozart
4 Schubert
5 Debussy
6 Stravinksy
7 Brahms
8 Verdi
9 Wagner
10 Bartok
The problem with this stupid list was Tommasini's "feeling" that it shouldn't be mainly 19th-century Viennese guys. So Haydn is booted and ... Bartok?! is in. Debussy also wrote some stuff that I love, but a top ten he is not.
If you want one of the stupidest replies ever, check out this woman's opinion at the guardian:
Idiocy on the hoof
Her problem? She wants the list to be "more daring".
His name, by the way, is Anthony Tommasini and he is the classical music critic of the New York Times.
Here is what he says:
For any attempt to determine the top 10 classical composers in history, like the one we embarked on in the Arts & Leisure section on Sunday, the Viennese Classical period presents a special challenge. If such a list is to be at all diverse and comprehensive, how could 4 of the 10 slots go to composers — Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert — who worked in Vienna during, say, the 75 years from 1750 to 1825? What on earth was going on there to foster such achievement?
Is this guy a boob or is this guy a boob? As Prager points out, it is not a top ten list. The list has been altered to include composers who were not Viennese, not flourishing between 1750 and 1825. How come it doesn't include women? How come everyone is white? Why no Hawaiian composers, or Greeks, or Nigerians, for that matter? There are no carpenters or politicians on that list. Maybe we should have a representative from the jockey community, too.
To put it simply, if someone was a top ten composer, he belongs on that list, regardless of Tommasini's desire to have a diverse list. Handel and Haydn both deserve spots.
Here is the list in descending order:
1 Bach
2 Beethoven
3 Mozart
4 Schubert
5 Debussy
6 Stravinksy
7 Brahms
8 Verdi
9 Wagner
10 Bartok
The problem with this stupid list was Tommasini's "feeling" that it shouldn't be mainly 19th-century Viennese guys. So Haydn is booted and ... Bartok?! is in. Debussy also wrote some stuff that I love, but a top ten he is not.
If you want one of the stupidest replies ever, check out this woman's opinion at the guardian:
Idiocy on the hoof
Her problem? She wants the list to be "more daring".
Friday, January 21, 2011
Prager: "It's complex to explain why you would use an adjective instead of an adverb..."
Prager is the guy who used to say, "Men and women are born differently." Apparently someone told him what was wrong with it because he quit using the adverb there. But I guess the explanation was "complicated". Obviously he's never read any of my emails because I know I've sent him a few on this subject. Does he really think grammar is important if his email reader won't forward even a short letter on grammar to the boss?
If he thinks it's "complex" it's no wonder that he still uses adverbs where the noun complement is, which he occasionally does, and occasionally doesn't. Today's comment that it's "complex" tells me he still doesn't thoroughly understand it, especially in light of how he inappropriately used an adverb just a few days ago.
For those of you who give a crap about grammar and are wondering what's the reason, it's simple: the verb "to be" is a "linking" verb, more correctly called a "copulative" verb. It connects the subject of the sentence with a word that describes or modifies it, and so we get the subject in the nominative case, and the word describing the subjec also in the nominative case.
I am blue.
He is tall.
That is my sister.
In each of these the last word modifies the first word. Blue is what I am, and tall is what he is, and my sister is what she is.
That's because of the copulative verb that connects the S and the PN.
There are twenty or thirty common verbs that act as copulative verbs. "Seem" and "look" are the most obvious examples. "You seem smart", "you look pretty". Smart and pretty restate what "you" look and seem to be.
I would have a difficult time listing all such verbs. How about "became"? "I read a lot more after college and BECAME a lot smarter." Well, here's a start:
Englis copulae
OBVIOUSLY "smarter" restates what "I" am. But there are a great number of elementary school grammar texts out there that would have you believe that whatever comes after the verb (when the verb is not "is") describes the verb and must be an adverb. And so we get such foolishness as Prager's old mistake, "Men and women are born differently," because he thought he was describing HOW we are born. We are born how? differently.
Sorry but the answer to that question is that we are different at birgh. You grow angry, you become angry, you wax angry. I wish I had a dollar for every time some nitwit editor has put out a book, article, thesis, column, whatever, that said "he waxed angrily."
Kill me, please.
If he thinks it's "complex" it's no wonder that he still uses adverbs where the noun complement is, which he occasionally does, and occasionally doesn't. Today's comment that it's "complex" tells me he still doesn't thoroughly understand it, especially in light of how he inappropriately used an adverb just a few days ago.
For those of you who give a crap about grammar and are wondering what's the reason, it's simple: the verb "to be" is a "linking" verb, more correctly called a "copulative" verb. It connects the subject of the sentence with a word that describes or modifies it, and so we get the subject in the nominative case, and the word describing the subjec also in the nominative case.
I am blue.
He is tall.
That is my sister.
In each of these the last word modifies the first word. Blue is what I am, and tall is what he is, and my sister is what she is.
That's because of the copulative verb that connects the S and the PN.
There are twenty or thirty common verbs that act as copulative verbs. "Seem" and "look" are the most obvious examples. "You seem smart", "you look pretty". Smart and pretty restate what "you" look and seem to be.
I would have a difficult time listing all such verbs. How about "became"? "I read a lot more after college and BECAME a lot smarter." Well, here's a start:
Englis copulae
OBVIOUSLY "smarter" restates what "I" am. But there are a great number of elementary school grammar texts out there that would have you believe that whatever comes after the verb (when the verb is not "is") describes the verb and must be an adverb. And so we get such foolishness as Prager's old mistake, "Men and women are born differently," because he thought he was describing HOW we are born. We are born how? differently.
Sorry but the answer to that question is that we are different at birgh. You grow angry, you become angry, you wax angry. I wish I had a dollar for every time some nitwit editor has put out a book, article, thesis, column, whatever, that said "he waxed angrily."
Kill me, please.
The Left uses Jesus and Christianity to bash the right
Well, I'm not so sure about that one. Most of my friends are leftwing Christians, so I know whom I'm speaking about. They don't know their Bible, but they do know some favorite phrases out of it. "Give away all your money" is one, and "pounding swords into plowshares" gives them a thrill up their legs. "Turn the other cheek" always means conservatives should lie down like carpets and let leftists walk on them. Yes, ALL Biblical rules are meant to apply to non-"us" people. I don't know a single leftist who has given away all their money, though I could name a few who live simply; meanwhile this verse is used to slam any Christian who disagrees with the leftist and hasn't given away all their money.
"Blessed are the meek" is another phrase much beloved by these least meek people on earth, but when they want YOU to take a beating, they whip this out with a readiness that's hard to believe.
Oh, well, holding a double standard isn't new to The Left. They have always been ready to criticize conservatives for the very same acts that they themselves commit. Look at the way they smear ANY conservative who would dare to say something personal about any democrat, yet they themselves will do much much worse. I'd give examples but they're too numerous to mention and I'm tired right now.
"Blessed are the meek" is another phrase much beloved by these least meek people on earth, but when they want YOU to take a beating, they whip this out with a readiness that's hard to believe.
Oh, well, holding a double standard isn't new to The Left. They have always been ready to criticize conservatives for the very same acts that they themselves commit. Look at the way they smear ANY conservative who would dare to say something personal about any democrat, yet they themselves will do much much worse. I'd give examples but they're too numerous to mention and I'm tired right now.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
"The Chiefs" ... What's wrong with chiefs?
Or "The Jews"? Exactly. Let's root for The Jews, I'm a Jews fan.
Back a dozen years or so ago, LAUnified School District was looking for new names for its schools' athletic teams because of a new policy to eliminate all Amerind-flavored nicknames, thanks to the hypersensitivity of a few liberals who imagined some phantom insult to Amerinds.
I suggested we name them ALL "The Conquistadores" and listen to the screams as people denounce whitey for "honoring" those evil invaders.
The issue would have been hilarious.
Back a dozen years or so ago, LAUnified School District was looking for new names for its schools' athletic teams because of a new policy to eliminate all Amerind-flavored nicknames, thanks to the hypersensitivity of a few liberals who imagined some phantom insult to Amerinds.
I suggested we name them ALL "The Conquistadores" and listen to the screams as people denounce whitey for "honoring" those evil invaders.
The issue would have been hilarious.
White guy, black district, and the CBC
Well, it rather exposes the pure racism of democrats. But because that's the most horrible state or character trait they can imagine, it will never be effectively applied to them, the true racists in this country.
Sure, you can look for an ignorant moron who thinks race tells you everything about someone's character, and you'd eventually find him. Even here in the south, though, white people insist they don't care about race, they voted for or against Obama completely without considering his race, they don't oppose interracial marriage, and while they see your color when they chat with you, they seriously don't think your color means anything but what your color is.
But the people who whine that Clarence Thomas is "stupid" are Democrats. Do NOT TELL ME that they support successful blacks when the only blacks they support are leftist blacks. They hate Clarence Thomas, they hate Thomas Sowell, they hate Shelby Steele, they hate Walter Williams, and call them "idiots"--four of the greatest intellects in the world today. They hate wonderful people like Condoleeza Rice and Congressman Allen West and J. C. Watts, whom everyone else thinks are wonderful people, and they call them evil or vicious or anything else they want to call them without any basis in the truth.
They only love black people if they're democrats, and liberal democrats at that.
Sure, you can look for an ignorant moron who thinks race tells you everything about someone's character, and you'd eventually find him. Even here in the south, though, white people insist they don't care about race, they voted for or against Obama completely without considering his race, they don't oppose interracial marriage, and while they see your color when they chat with you, they seriously don't think your color means anything but what your color is.
But the people who whine that Clarence Thomas is "stupid" are Democrats. Do NOT TELL ME that they support successful blacks when the only blacks they support are leftist blacks. They hate Clarence Thomas, they hate Thomas Sowell, they hate Shelby Steele, they hate Walter Williams, and call them "idiots"--four of the greatest intellects in the world today. They hate wonderful people like Condoleeza Rice and Congressman Allen West and J. C. Watts, whom everyone else thinks are wonderful people, and they call them evil or vicious or anything else they want to call them without any basis in the truth.
They only love black people if they're democrats, and liberal democrats at that.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Being a stay-home mom does not mean you can't develop
Try telling that to my generation of mothers.
Our favorite line was, "These kids are turning my brain to mush!"
I even said it a few times, back when I still considered myself a feminist and still felt like voting liberal democrat was a good thing to do.
Then, one day, those words passed from my lips, and I realized, "Why am I saying this?"
Yes, why would anyone claim that someone they loved dearly was giving them some kind of brain damage? Do you realize what else you're saying? You're admitting you don't read, you're admitting the only noise you ever hear inside your house is oriented toward babies, and unintelligent babies at that, so you're also admitting your babies are as stupid as you are. You're admitting you don't keep up with the news and you don't discuss politics or religion, let alone philosophy or history, with anyone but yourself and perhaps your spouse. You're admitting your spouse is as stupid as you are and is incapable of offering stimulating conversation. In fact, you're admitting there is never any stimulating conversation to be found in your home. You don't have any subscriptions to any interesting magazines, you never take any adult ed classes, you haven't lifted a finger toward improving yourself by way of taking on or studying any new skill. You may have played the piano as a child, but you're sure not practicing one now, you don't practice your high school french, you haven't learnt a single new language since you graduated, you never sat for months trying to make a complete geneological chart of the Hapsburgs, you never learned that the Viking spread across northern Europe changed that entire continent's social and political structure. How much more can I condemn your self-imposed, voluntary, and bragged-about stupidity?
Our favorite line was, "These kids are turning my brain to mush!"
I even said it a few times, back when I still considered myself a feminist and still felt like voting liberal democrat was a good thing to do.
Then, one day, those words passed from my lips, and I realized, "Why am I saying this?"
Yes, why would anyone claim that someone they loved dearly was giving them some kind of brain damage? Do you realize what else you're saying? You're admitting you don't read, you're admitting the only noise you ever hear inside your house is oriented toward babies, and unintelligent babies at that, so you're also admitting your babies are as stupid as you are. You're admitting you don't keep up with the news and you don't discuss politics or religion, let alone philosophy or history, with anyone but yourself and perhaps your spouse. You're admitting your spouse is as stupid as you are and is incapable of offering stimulating conversation. In fact, you're admitting there is never any stimulating conversation to be found in your home. You don't have any subscriptions to any interesting magazines, you never take any adult ed classes, you haven't lifted a finger toward improving yourself by way of taking on or studying any new skill. You may have played the piano as a child, but you're sure not practicing one now, you don't practice your high school french, you haven't learnt a single new language since you graduated, you never sat for months trying to make a complete geneological chart of the Hapsburgs, you never learned that the Viking spread across northern Europe changed that entire continent's social and political structure. How much more can I condemn your self-imposed, voluntary, and bragged-about stupidity?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Prager: "How do you sell out a race?!"
Easy, you fail to affirm the crummiest of the values of liberal members of that race. If you're black, you stop looking like a black redneck, with their lack of education, values, work ethic. You get educated, you date people who don't belong to your same gene pool, you speak a dialect not spoken by the lowest member of "your group".
If you're Amerind, you fail to learn your great-great-great grandfather's "native" language. You drop the godawful earth-worshiping religion his tribe practiced and you consider capitalism to be not a bad thing. You wear whitey clothes, you marry a non-Indian woman, you move off the reservation of poverty and buy a house of your own. You fail to attend a Potlatch which your tribe attends. Any ONE of these is enough to make you a sellout.
If you're a peon from south of the U.S. border, you don't join La Raza and you don't go to demonstrations demanding the return of the southwestern quarter of the U.S. to Mexico. That's all it takes to be a sellout to the ignorant communists who founded La Raza and they're the ones who define "sellout".
If you're Amerind, you fail to learn your great-great-great grandfather's "native" language. You drop the godawful earth-worshiping religion his tribe practiced and you consider capitalism to be not a bad thing. You wear whitey clothes, you marry a non-Indian woman, you move off the reservation of poverty and buy a house of your own. You fail to attend a Potlatch which your tribe attends. Any ONE of these is enough to make you a sellout.
If you're a peon from south of the U.S. border, you don't join La Raza and you don't go to demonstrations demanding the return of the southwestern quarter of the U.S. to Mexico. That's all it takes to be a sellout to the ignorant communists who founded La Raza and they're the ones who define "sellout".
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Larry King: "Why do you think so many conservatives are so against this feeling of being kind?"
Well, we all have known that Mr. King is a fool for a long, long time.
Here he's just repeating the line that the most fooling bunch of people on the planet keep repeating.
Here he's just repeating the line that the most fooling bunch of people on the planet keep repeating.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The ability to have passive "fun"
"All through human history if you wanted amusement (not laughter, but something to occupy you), you had to go out and do it yourself. Even knitting and reading, you have to perform. Games, conversation, a walk in the fresh air and even what used to be called "a turn about the room" (simply the act of walking around in it), all were shattered with the invention of television.
Prager, ever heard of "radio"? I would have thought people would listen to radio instead of reading, while sitting around it, doing something else like building a model railroad or darning socks. But the more I see pictures of families enjoying radio back then, the more I realize that many children lay on their tummies and stared at the thing and did NOTHING ELSE. It seems so strange to me. I couldn't even watch TV without knitting, so I learned to knit without looking at my hands. I'd watch and knit.
What's "Book TV"? Sounds like a loss of quality. The History Channel has some good on it but I can't say I approve of their "academician" take on things; they approach so much of history with an iconoclastic "You've heard such and so but that's a terrible myth, the truth is ..." attitude that I really don't believe much of what they say any more. If they do one more show on the magnificently astonishing accuracy of Nostradamus, I will scream.
Meanwhile, what I think is going on is primarily laziness. But the reason so much of it is so appealing (we could entertain ourselves nearly as lazily with many other entertainments) is that it is so absorbing, and people use it more as a distraction, to forget how miserable they are as human beings. In other words, it's mostly a mood-altering drug.
Prager, ever heard of "radio"? I would have thought people would listen to radio instead of reading, while sitting around it, doing something else like building a model railroad or darning socks. But the more I see pictures of families enjoying radio back then, the more I realize that many children lay on their tummies and stared at the thing and did NOTHING ELSE. It seems so strange to me. I couldn't even watch TV without knitting, so I learned to knit without looking at my hands. I'd watch and knit.
What's "Book TV"? Sounds like a loss of quality. The History Channel has some good on it but I can't say I approve of their "academician" take on things; they approach so much of history with an iconoclastic "You've heard such and so but that's a terrible myth, the truth is ..." attitude that I really don't believe much of what they say any more. If they do one more show on the magnificently astonishing accuracy of Nostradamus, I will scream.
Meanwhile, what I think is going on is primarily laziness. But the reason so much of it is so appealing (we could entertain ourselves nearly as lazily with many other entertainments) is that it is so absorbing, and people use it more as a distraction, to forget how miserable they are as human beings. In other words, it's mostly a mood-altering drug.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Regarding every man as a potential molester
This is a horrible, horrible thing.
It's not exactly new. I can remember in 1960 or thereabouts, my father explaining to me why men do not become kindergarten teachers. "Women have that mothering instinct," he said, "and find it great to hug and love the young children, who are barely out of toddlerhood. Men prefer to stand in front of the class and explain things, so their students tend to be older, like high school kids. They don't seek the touching and hugging of little children the way mothering women do."
Doesn't matter what you think of the explanation, it was offered in 1960 or maybe a couple of years after. Even before Sixties feminism tried to obliterate the differences between men and women.
The funny thing about this is that when the Seventies started, our Feminist Mothers had to turn around and try to tar every man on the planet with the accusation that they indeed were different from women, that they become sexually aggressive whenever possible, that they molest whenever given a chance.
Doesn't matter, any idea that comes from hippies is stupid. Really really stupid.
It's not exactly new. I can remember in 1960 or thereabouts, my father explaining to me why men do not become kindergarten teachers. "Women have that mothering instinct," he said, "and find it great to hug and love the young children, who are barely out of toddlerhood. Men prefer to stand in front of the class and explain things, so their students tend to be older, like high school kids. They don't seek the touching and hugging of little children the way mothering women do."
Doesn't matter what you think of the explanation, it was offered in 1960 or maybe a couple of years after. Even before Sixties feminism tried to obliterate the differences between men and women.
The funny thing about this is that when the Seventies started, our Feminist Mothers had to turn around and try to tar every man on the planet with the accusation that they indeed were different from women, that they become sexually aggressive whenever possible, that they molest whenever given a chance.
Doesn't matter, any idea that comes from hippies is stupid. Really really stupid.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
"How do you explain so many people believing that the U.S. is the most dangerous country in the world?"
So many Canadian teenagers.
Hahaha, says so much about the Canadian school system. It's been infested by the same "Progressive" trash that has infested ours.
And the same leftists that want to save the world in the U.S. have first cousins in Canada who similarly are going to change the world for Canadians.
gg Canada.
Oh, by the way, yes, I'm in favor of doing a politics check and balancing both points of view in schools. AND IN COLLEGES, TOO.
Hahaha, says so much about the Canadian school system. It's been infested by the same "Progressive" trash that has infested ours.
And the same leftists that want to save the world in the U.S. have first cousins in Canada who similarly are going to change the world for Canadians.
gg Canada.
Oh, by the way, yes, I'm in favor of doing a politics check and balancing both points of view in schools. AND IN COLLEGES, TOO.
Monday, January 10, 2011
"Truth" is not a value for the left
My swan song for being a leftist came when the House was taking debate on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
Again and again and again members of Congress got up and made pronouncements. Mostly, of course, that anyone against PBA was also anti-woman, anti-health, anti-child (!!!), anti-everything else. I don't remember whether they were called racists as well, probably they were and I was out of the room getting a cup of coffee when it happened, I wouldn't know. The lies pouring from the mouths of the leftwing speakers were multitudinous, and I rapidly grew sick of it, but by then, as a former UCLA student, I was very familiar with the axiom that leftists don't tell the truth.
Leftist: "No one gets an abortion for convenience, these abortions are medically necessary."
Anti-PBA'ist: "I have here a copy of a statement from Dr. Haskell himself, who pioneered the procedure, claiming that no fewer than 70% of the procedures he performs at his clinic are ELECTIVE."
next Leftist: "No one gets an abortion for convenience, these late-term abortions are done out of necessity."
and here's another example:
Leftist: "Women must continue to have access to these procedures to protect our health!"
Anti-PBA'ist: "It takes three days to dilate the cervix before performing a dnx; any doctor confronted with a medical emergency that requires ending the pregnancy for the health of the mother is practicing quackery if he deliberately delays the procedure using this slow procedure."
next Leftist: "Women need this procedure or we will be dying from bad pregnancies by the thousands."
and on it went, example after example.
Again and again and again members of Congress got up and made pronouncements. Mostly, of course, that anyone against PBA was also anti-woman, anti-health, anti-child (!!!), anti-everything else. I don't remember whether they were called racists as well, probably they were and I was out of the room getting a cup of coffee when it happened, I wouldn't know. The lies pouring from the mouths of the leftwing speakers were multitudinous, and I rapidly grew sick of it, but by then, as a former UCLA student, I was very familiar with the axiom that leftists don't tell the truth.
Leftist: "No one gets an abortion for convenience, these abortions are medically necessary."
Anti-PBA'ist: "I have here a copy of a statement from Dr. Haskell himself, who pioneered the procedure, claiming that no fewer than 70% of the procedures he performs at his clinic are ELECTIVE."
next Leftist: "No one gets an abortion for convenience, these late-term abortions are done out of necessity."
and here's another example:
Leftist: "Women must continue to have access to these procedures to protect our health!"
Anti-PBA'ist: "It takes three days to dilate the cervix before performing a dnx; any doctor confronted with a medical emergency that requires ending the pregnancy for the health of the mother is practicing quackery if he deliberately delays the procedure using this slow procedure."
next Leftist: "Women need this procedure or we will be dying from bad pregnancies by the thousands."
and on it went, example after example.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Prager: "There are no "shoulds" in life!"
... "I used to wonder, What do you mean? We shouldn't be kind to others? How can there be no 'shoulds' in life?"
This is why I listen to Prager virtually every day. There are precious few people left who will stand up for right and wrong and be heard. Sure, people like me will stand up for right and wrong, but who hears us?
I have a friend who is very conscious of what right and wrong are. (Or rather, he was, until he met one of the worst bitches on the planet, and, desperate to have a chick on his arm regardless of what a piece of crap she was, he threw everything he stood for in the garbage, but that's a different story.) But a higher value for him is "being liked by everybody". So, rather than risk offending someone by saying "this is right, that is wrong", he holds his tongue, goes along to get along, and watches the people around him behave like pure shits.
This poor, dumb friend is free to consider this idiocy as a virtue if he must. But he does not have any business looking down his nose at others who thing there are some things that are worth getting into some conflict over. And "being liked by others" is a pretty poor value to have at the top of your priority list. For this fellow, fighting for right and wrong USED to be at the top of that list. Come to think of it, he recently adopted his childhood hero, Iron Man, as his role model.
Yes, being "liked by everyone" is so important. Someone needs to tell him what those people say about him behind his back.
Brandon, Iron Man fights for right and wrong. Do you think he holds "being liked by everyone" as his highest value? If believe that, maybe you should try to convince Princess Faith to start behaving like something other than human garbage, and be just a tad more likable.
This is why I listen to Prager virtually every day. There are precious few people left who will stand up for right and wrong and be heard. Sure, people like me will stand up for right and wrong, but who hears us?
I have a friend who is very conscious of what right and wrong are. (Or rather, he was, until he met one of the worst bitches on the planet, and, desperate to have a chick on his arm regardless of what a piece of crap she was, he threw everything he stood for in the garbage, but that's a different story.) But a higher value for him is "being liked by everybody". So, rather than risk offending someone by saying "this is right, that is wrong", he holds his tongue, goes along to get along, and watches the people around him behave like pure shits.
This poor, dumb friend is free to consider this idiocy as a virtue if he must. But he does not have any business looking down his nose at others who thing there are some things that are worth getting into some conflict over. And "being liked by others" is a pretty poor value to have at the top of your priority list. For this fellow, fighting for right and wrong USED to be at the top of that list. Come to think of it, he recently adopted his childhood hero, Iron Man, as his role model.
Yes, being "liked by everyone" is so important. Someone needs to tell him what those people say about him behind his back.
Brandon, Iron Man fights for right and wrong. Do you think he holds "being liked by everyone" as his highest value? If believe that, maybe you should try to convince Princess Faith to start behaving like something other than human garbage, and be just a tad more likable.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Why are there no Christian terrorists?
90% of the lefties who hear this question will immediately counter with "abortion clinic bombings" and once that has been put on the table, the discussion is over. That is, of course, the point--not to have to discuss anything.
Listen to that fool in your tape. "They walk into post offices, that's what Columbine was all about," because he's a mind-numbed robot. Everyone knows that every day, Christians march into post offices and set off bombs in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Pope. Mormons are the worst. They'll blow you up in the name of Jehovah, Adonai, Jesus, and Joseph Smith all at the same time!
Listen to that fool in your tape. "They walk into post offices, that's what Columbine was all about," because he's a mind-numbed robot. Everyone knows that every day, Christians march into post offices and set off bombs in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Pope. Mormons are the worst. They'll blow you up in the name of Jehovah, Adonai, Jesus, and Joseph Smith all at the same time!
Not fighting means more peace in the world
Keep trying, Prager. We're talking about an idea that was embraced and promulgated by the hippies. They have yet to dismiss any of their massively failed ideas, including the "War is not healthy for children and other living things" idiocy.
Why don't colleges have required courses?
Remember that colleges used to have required courses. It was considered essential for anyone who wanted to call himself "educated" to know certain things.
Here is a little list that mere women (not even well-educated men!) were obliged to go through in 1810:
[Miss Bingley:] "...no one can be really esteemed accomplished, who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved.''
``All this she must possess,'' added Darcy, ``and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.''
As for what gentlemen must possess, it was a college education, which comprehended a LOT more than you'll find in even good colleges today. A classical education, including history, Latin, Greek, a couple of modern languages, English grammar and again, "something more substantial, in the improvement of [his] mind by extensive reading." Every mind was expected to be improved else the bearer of the mind would be looked down upon with contempt (because its owner would be considered roughly equivalent to an Irish bricklayer).
In the Twenties and Thirties our Progressives decided to drop standards. "Who is to say that one thing is better than another?" And an old philosophy based in the nonsensical sayings of Rousseau, was dredged up, that education must be determined by the student and whatever the student was interested in learning, and not what some stuffy committee of old grizzled men had decided.
When WW2 was over and our GIs flooded the colleges, their way paid by the GI Bill, and under the assumption that getting a college diploma would bring you a bigger paycheck, colleges took in a huge number of less-educated, less-capable (read "less brilliant") students, and with colleges expanding as fast as they could, the standards had to come down. No longer were Greek and Latin required, nor even were they seen as relevant. Engineering and Business seemed to be the order of the day, not Philosophy or Literature.
But it was in the Sixties that you saw the heyday of the hedonistic curriculum. I have been long used to thinking my peers, the hippies, had inaugurated this anarchy with their mantra of "who's to say what's better than something else?" and all the attendant "ethnic studies" malarkey. But this stuff followed on the heels of even worse courses which were variously described contemptuously as "Underwater Basketweaving 101". So we had hippies under the tutelage of beatniks who had learned from GI Bill benefactors who had never met Mr Chips and probably would have hated him had they ever studied under him.
Now these hippies have taught two generations that there is no such thing as standards, and these generations are in charge of the schools. "It is bad to teach grammar," said the NEA in 1927 at their annual convention; and this axiom was seconded in 1947 and again in 1972. What in the world is wrong with teaching grammar? Well, it confuses and bores the student and it keeps the incompetent teacher (who does not understand grammar anyway) from teaching something that is actually important, such as conflict resolution, self-esteem, or sex ed.
How in the world is could there be required courses in this system?
Here is a little list that mere women (not even well-educated men!) were obliged to go through in 1810:
[Miss Bingley:] "...no one can be really esteemed accomplished, who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved.''
``All this she must possess,'' added Darcy, ``and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.''
As for what gentlemen must possess, it was a college education, which comprehended a LOT more than you'll find in even good colleges today. A classical education, including history, Latin, Greek, a couple of modern languages, English grammar and again, "something more substantial, in the improvement of [his] mind by extensive reading." Every mind was expected to be improved else the bearer of the mind would be looked down upon with contempt (because its owner would be considered roughly equivalent to an Irish bricklayer).
In the Twenties and Thirties our Progressives decided to drop standards. "Who is to say that one thing is better than another?" And an old philosophy based in the nonsensical sayings of Rousseau, was dredged up, that education must be determined by the student and whatever the student was interested in learning, and not what some stuffy committee of old grizzled men had decided.
When WW2 was over and our GIs flooded the colleges, their way paid by the GI Bill, and under the assumption that getting a college diploma would bring you a bigger paycheck, colleges took in a huge number of less-educated, less-capable (read "less brilliant") students, and with colleges expanding as fast as they could, the standards had to come down. No longer were Greek and Latin required, nor even were they seen as relevant. Engineering and Business seemed to be the order of the day, not Philosophy or Literature.
But it was in the Sixties that you saw the heyday of the hedonistic curriculum. I have been long used to thinking my peers, the hippies, had inaugurated this anarchy with their mantra of "who's to say what's better than something else?" and all the attendant "ethnic studies" malarkey. But this stuff followed on the heels of even worse courses which were variously described contemptuously as "Underwater Basketweaving 101". So we had hippies under the tutelage of beatniks who had learned from GI Bill benefactors who had never met Mr Chips and probably would have hated him had they ever studied under him.
Now these hippies have taught two generations that there is no such thing as standards, and these generations are in charge of the schools. "It is bad to teach grammar," said the NEA in 1927 at their annual convention; and this axiom was seconded in 1947 and again in 1972. What in the world is wrong with teaching grammar? Well, it confuses and bores the student and it keeps the incompetent teacher (who does not understand grammar anyway) from teaching something that is actually important, such as conflict resolution, self-esteem, or sex ed.
How in the world is could there be required courses in this system?
Guest: Dr Thomas Sowell
Americans are illiterate in economics.
In school we get no economics instruction. We don't get any understanding about how money works or where it goes, what productivity is or how monetary incentives work, nor are we allowed to understand what business is for or how it is not the Enemy of the People.
Even if we did teach economics to our children, it would be bad teaching in the vast majority of the classrooms because the texts would we written by leftists and two-thirds of the teachers would be coming from a leftwing perspective.
Why have you never read Dr. Sowell's book, Basic Economics? Do you like to be economically illiterate too?
Yet this subject is so important. Our brilliant scholar of a President is a fine example. Harvard educated and he thinks that if I lose my job and go on unemployment insurance, that doesn't affect the economy. The dollar paid to me by the government is just as good as the dollar paid me by my employer. He doesn't see a difference.
No doubt he grew up on "The Story of Stuff", as so many of our children are doing now.
In school we get no economics instruction. We don't get any understanding about how money works or where it goes, what productivity is or how monetary incentives work, nor are we allowed to understand what business is for or how it is not the Enemy of the People.
Even if we did teach economics to our children, it would be bad teaching in the vast majority of the classrooms because the texts would we written by leftists and two-thirds of the teachers would be coming from a leftwing perspective.
Why have you never read Dr. Sowell's book, Basic Economics? Do you like to be economically illiterate too?
Yet this subject is so important. Our brilliant scholar of a President is a fine example. Harvard educated and he thinks that if I lose my job and go on unemployment insurance, that doesn't affect the economy. The dollar paid to me by the government is just as good as the dollar paid me by my employer. He doesn't see a difference.
No doubt he grew up on "The Story of Stuff", as so many of our children are doing now.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Iran is revamping its education system to rid it of Western ideas
When will Americans wake up, instead of crying about how mean and nasty and discriminatory America is? This is absolutely horrible.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Sick today
I started posting today, and am finally coming to grips with the fact that I just don't want to write much at all, never mind a reasoned response.
I woke up this morning with a severe pain in my neck. One of the vertebrae was out of place and I couldn't get it to pop back. Now, five hours and a lot of horrible pain later, I'm hurting more than I did when I woke up. Probably from cringing and tightening muscles that I wasn't tightening five hours ago, there is pain all the way down my neck, almost all extending out to the right side. This hurts, and I mean it really hurts. I got one "pop" an hour ago and immediately that pain was relieved slightly (I could turn my head about 45 degrees) but within two minutes the pain came back even worse than before.
I woke up this morning with a severe pain in my neck. One of the vertebrae was out of place and I couldn't get it to pop back. Now, five hours and a lot of horrible pain later, I'm hurting more than I did when I woke up. Probably from cringing and tightening muscles that I wasn't tightening five hours ago, there is pain all the way down my neck, almost all extending out to the right side. This hurts, and I mean it really hurts. I got one "pop" an hour ago and immediately that pain was relieved slightly (I could turn my head about 45 degrees) but within two minutes the pain came back even worse than before.
Obama: "On the Republican side, this is the Holy Grail, these tax cuts for the rich"
I'm sorry, I truly do not like summing up an opposing politician or even just an opposing point of view with one ugly ad hominem thrown at someone with the intent of dismissing everything that he said in the past, says now, or will say in the future.
The sad fact is that so many democrats have no such constraint whatsoever. Not all of them; for example, the delightful Juan Williams has never tried to pull this stunt. But it forms such an essential part of democrat argument that it is somewhat legitimate to lump them as a group and then address the delightful exceptions as exceptions.
This caller supplies: in their mind, it cannot be that someone who is educated, intelligent, and good can also believe any conservative position. So when discussing this stuff, this caller asks the democrat, "So which am I, mean, uneducated, unintelligent, or evil?" and says the reply always comes back as, "Oh, you're not like that, you're the exception."
Maybe we need to ask our friends that question more often.
The sad fact is that so many democrats have no such constraint whatsoever. Not all of them; for example, the delightful Juan Williams has never tried to pull this stunt. But it forms such an essential part of democrat argument that it is somewhat legitimate to lump them as a group and then address the delightful exceptions as exceptions.
This caller supplies: in their mind, it cannot be that someone who is educated, intelligent, and good can also believe any conservative position. So when discussing this stuff, this caller asks the democrat, "So which am I, mean, uneducated, unintelligent, or evil?" and says the reply always comes back as, "Oh, you're not like that, you're the exception."
Maybe we need to ask our friends that question more often.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Well, this happens to be from Prager's Monday show
I just happen to be listening to it late, Tuesday morning to be exact, on WIND radio, Chicago.
Here's a link to the streaming player so you can listen too if you want:
http://den-a.plr.liquidcompass.net/player/flash/audio_player.php?id=WINDAM&uid=179&mode=live
Here is a link to the New York Times article he addressed in his first hour, only it happens to be a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reprint:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11003/1115168-82.stm?cmpid=nationworld.xml
or maybe this is the one:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/220883-Europe-s-Young-Grow-Agitated-Over-Future-Prospects
Here's a link to the streaming player so you can listen too if you want:
http://den-a.plr.liquidcompass.net/player/flash/audio_player.php?id=WINDAM&uid=179&mode=live
Here is a link to the New York Times article he addressed in his first hour, only it happens to be a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reprint:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11003/1115168-82.stm?cmpid=nationworld.xml
or maybe this is the one:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/220883-Europe-s-Young-Grow-Agitated-Over-Future-Prospects
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)